It is an audacious pursuit to divine an assertive original context from a text written by men who themselves did not agree. Such is the conceit of constitutional originalism and it’s disciples. Even a modest history lesson divulges the disagreements among the founders — whether a Bill of Rights should exist, or even if there ought to be a constitution at all.

Human beings understand that an idea can have formidable perseverance, when they agree with it. In fact, so fervently do people believe this, falling on one’s sword to protect the idea is considered an honorable exit from this terrestrial sphere. So, it goes without saying that human beings understand an idea can survive violence, even death — but again, only if they agree with the idea.

I’m sorry if this pisses people off, but the ideology of libertarianism, one that emphasizes the singular over the whole, to the detriment of the whole, is the political ideology of those who are not ready for political prime time. And I say this as someone who once had greater libertarian tendencies, so I feel I’m as qualified as anyone else to render this verdict.

One of the tenets of free market ideology is consumer choice. The idea goes like this. Empower citizens to make their own decisions and they will have greater freedom, greater prosperity, and businesses will live or die at the will of the consumer. Therefore, corporations and executives are in effect beholden to the consumer. Sounds good right? Who could be against that?

Conservative columnist Kurt Schlichter delivers a concise but trite piece of liberal-bashing on Townhall.com. In the article he tells Millenials that by voting for Obama by a margin of 28 percent, they have voted for their own serfdom, and in the bargain, have set up a wealth transfer from the young to the old. Schlichter considers himself part of the latter group (he is 49), and he thanks them for their gifts.

Have you noticed when it comes to conservatives, their reasons for being against social progress are secondary to the conflict? Put another way, many conservatives find comfort in defining good vs. evil, ally vs. foe.

It might seem like a difficult choice sometimes to vote at all, particularly if you live by the idea of voting for what is right. I guess a more nuanced approach would be to say you should vote for the candidate who is closer to what you believe is right. The game might be rigged, but don’t allow the candidate who is further from your values to win by not casting your vote. And I sincerely say this regardless of who you plan to vote for. I will lay out the case in article after article of why I think that should be Barack Obama, but you will have to vote your conscience, not mine.

So I’m just going to come out and say it: Republicans are selfish. How else to explain their policies? They advocate lower taxes, especially for millionaires, along with spending cuts that hurt people at the bottom of the economic ladder. And here’s how this works: Republicans have to tell themselves and the rest of us that it’s tough love and that they aren’t advocating these policies because they are mean, or greedy, or selfish. No, they will say everyone can achieve the American dream if they just stop taking free handouts, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and make something of their life. OK, so add “disparaging” along with “selfish” as suitable words to describe the Republican Party and it’s policies. But I guess you have to believe they are genuine, because how could anybody live with themselves advocating such potentially destructive policies for the poor? Republicans have to believe that those who are harmed by their policies are deserving of that harm because they are freeloaders, and so the only way to solve this “problem” is to cut spending.

Republicans have become the party of “No we can’t” and Democrats have become the party of “Yes we can, but…”. Gone are the days of big ideas and big plans for the future. We no longer live in a country that is capable of shooting for the stars and solving big problems. Instead we are in a race to the bottom that has coincided with a political shift to the right that caters to rich and powerful interests.